Can anyone cite an example in which YIMBY policies have worked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

Washington DC has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Just because this issue is new to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t already been tried many many times before.

Oh man, I wonder how it could be true that Washington DC has built housing and yet prices are increasing. Could it be that population is growing faster than the construction of new housing? No, that couldn't possibly be the case.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/since-2000-the-dc-region-added-twice-as-many-people-as-housing-units/15405

It will always be true, no matter how many units we add.

What's your point?

Add all the housing you want. It will not make any difference to prices. There’s five million people in the suburbs and many of them would love a shorter commute.

There is an underlying cost factor to all of this. Input factors on construction costs are land, materials, labor and regulatory. Every upzoning or new construction increases the underlying cost of land, which increases construction costs. It’s a game of chasing a moving target. There is no possible future, absent extrinsic factors, that would make new construction cheaper to the point that it produces new housing units that are “affordable” to the average household in any meaningful sense. Then there’s the obvious fact that new construction actually increases prices for adjacent properties and the idea that building to affordability just makes no sense. Builders will build when it’s economically and profitable for them to do so.

You’ll know housing is getting cheaper when developers stop building

Exactly. The YIMBY presumption is that housing is a commodity and developers are dumber than corn farmers. Somehow they will decide to over-build and the market clears at a lower price and housing is cheaper. But that would require developers to lose their shirts and that’s just not going to happen.

It’s happened before, but recently enough that developers are more cautious now. They’ve also learned that people are willing to spend more of their income for housing (where did that 30 percent affordability guideline come from?) so they know it’s better to be short than it is to be long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

Washington DC has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Just because this issue is new to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t already been tried many many times before.

Oh man, I wonder how it could be true that Washington DC has built housing and yet prices are increasing. Could it be that population is growing faster than the construction of new housing? No, that couldn't possibly be the case.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/since-2000-the-dc-region-added-twice-as-many-people-as-housing-units/15405

It will always be true, no matter how many units we add.

What's your point?

Add all the housing you want. It will not make any difference to prices. There’s five million people in the suburbs and many of them would love a shorter commute.

There is an underlying cost factor to all of this. Input factors on construction costs are land, materials, labor and regulatory. Every upzoning or new construction increases the underlying cost of land, which increases construction costs. It’s a game of chasing a moving target. There is no possible future, absent extrinsic factors, that would make new construction cheaper to the point that it produces new housing units that are “affordable” to the average household in any meaningful sense. Then there’s the obvious fact that new construction actually increases prices for adjacent properties and the idea that building to affordability just makes no sense. Builders will build when it’s economically and profitable for them to do so.

You’ll know housing is getting cheaper when developers stop building

Exactly. The YIMBY presumption is that housing is a commodity and developers are dumber than corn farmers. Somehow they will decide to over-build and the market clears at a lower price and housing is cheaper. But that would require developers to lose their shirts and that’s just not going to happen.

It’s happened before, but recently enough that developers are more cautious now. They’ve also learned that people are willing to spend more of their income for housing (where did that 30 percent affordability guideline come from?) so they know it’s better to be short than it is to be long.

“It’s happened before”. Yeah, that was something that was called the Savings and Loan Crisis.

Your policy goals requires both developers and banks to lose their shirts and that’s not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

See I want to be on your side, but I can't. I bet you have one of those love your neighbor signs in their yard and something about no hate.

People like you in Arlington are all up in arms right now because they ignored the Missing Middle study and now it's about to sail through the Board.

People posting on NextDoor are like "Guess I won't be voting for these people next time around..." LOLOLOLOL Right you will just be voting for someone else exactly like them?

This is what people in Arlington wanted. This is what people in Arlington love. The policy is a very liberal minded, equity and inclusion policy that by the rantings and ravings of people especially in North Arlington love, and shout about and embrace.

I mean if you are in Arlington and can't embrace this opportunity to bring about better equity and right wrongs for generations ago, are you sure you are really truly as liberal as you say? Or could you possibly be * gasp * going to the dark side as they say ?

[Anonymous]

There are people who can't afford to live in Ward 3 who want to change zoning laws so that they can. They don't realize that the changes they want won't lower housing prices - certainly not enough to make them affordable. Much more likely is that developers will squeeze more high end housing on smaller lots. They will end up destroying the neighborhoods they covet. Remember, there are lots and lots of people who can afford to live in these houses even if you can't. Why should we change the look and feel of this city because of the choices you made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

See I want to be on your side, but I can't. I bet you have one of those love your neighbor signs in their yard and something about no hate.

People like you in Arlington are all up in arms right now because they ignored the Missing Middle study and now it's about to sail through the Board.

People posting on NextDoor are like "Guess I won't be voting for these people next time around..." LOLOLOLOL Right you will just be voting for someone else exactly like them?

This is what people in Arlington wanted. This is what people in Arlington love. The policy is a very liberal minded, equity and inclusion policy that by the rantings and ravings of people especially in North Arlington love, and shout about and embrace.

I mean if you are in Arlington and can't embrace this opportunity to bring about better equity and right wrongs for generations ago, are you sure you are really truly as liberal as you say? Or could you possibly be * gasp * going to the dark side as they say ?

I’m so sad you can’t be on my side.

I don’t have a yard, so I have no signs.

People can pursue whatever kind of housing they want.

Developers should be allowed to build whatever the market wants, but the market overwhelmingly prefers SF detached (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly). Anything short of that is settling.

I know what I want, and it doesn’t involve sharing walls.

Typical YIMBY trying to impose your preferences on other people. It’s a shame you exploit equity and righting historic wrongs just to help developers make money.

[Anonymous]

Single family homes are only going to get more rare, which means they will get more and more expensive, which means people will never sell them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Those rowhouses were not built in the 1800s, they were built in the 1940s and were intentionally built cheaply to serve as cheap housing for wage earners at a time when Baltimore was booming. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

See I want to be on your side, but I can't. I bet you have one of those love your neighbor signs in their yard and something about no hate.

People like you in Arlington are all up in arms right now because they ignored the Missing Middle study and now it's about to sail through the Board.

People posting on NextDoor are like "Guess I won't be voting for these people next time around..." LOLOLOLOL Right you will just be voting for someone else exactly like them?

This is what people in Arlington wanted. This is what people in Arlington love. The policy is a very liberal minded, equity and inclusion policy that by the rantings and ravings of people especially in North Arlington love, and shout about and embrace.

I mean if you are in Arlington and can't embrace this opportunity to bring about better equity and right wrongs for generations ago, are you sure you are really truly as liberal as you say? Or could you possibly be * gasp * going to the dark side as they say ?

I’m so sad you can’t be on my side.

I don’t have a yard, so I have no signs.

People can pursue whatever kind of housing they want.

Developers should be allowed to build whatever the market wants, but the market overwhelmingly prefers SF detached (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly). Anything short of that is settling.

I know what I want, and it doesn’t involve sharing walls.

Typical YIMBY trying to impose your preferences on other people. It’s a shame you exploit equity and righting historic wrongs just to help developers make money.

While there are not a lot of available SFHs in Arlington, there are plenty all over the DMV. If I really wanted, I would buy one of them.
Sucker. You wanted all the liberalism. You got it! 😂😂😂😂 Maybe next time think a little harder about why am all Democrat everything is t such a great idea….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

No. Nothing to do with zoning and everything to do with sh*tty, low quality housing stock that needs to be demolished and rebuilt block by block. The problem is that requires institutional money, which won’t finance this prospectively.

This system requires little guys to take the risks first before the institutional money piled in. But without the “good bones”, there is nothing to work with.

It’s why Eckington has seen a resurgence in DC. Nice old houses just in need of a little TLC. Not enough neighborhoods in Baltimore with row houses with front setbacks, porch and front and rear yards.

And to be clear, this is exactly the YIMBY mantra. No setbacks, build to the property line and build cheaply. Turns out that this is not a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

Sorry, chief. The west side vacants near downtown are zoned R-8, which permits more than 50 units/acre MF residential. It’s not zoning. YIMBYism has done you a disservice by making you think the government controls development instead of land owners.